New York Times: Why New Yorkers Rejected Ballot Proposals on Voting and Redistricting

In October, New York’s Republican and Conservative Parties went nuclear.

Eager to rally their bases in an off-year election, and concerned about ballot initiatives that they considered a threat, the parties devised a two-pronged offensive. The Conservative Party spent about $3 million, according to its chairman, on television and radio ads arguing that the initiatives were tantamount to corruption. Republicans mounted a whistle-stop “Just Say No” tour that traversed 40 counties in 10 days. By comparison, Democrats spent and did little.

At issue were three of five proposed constitutional amendments listed on the back of voters’ ballots. The first would have required that, for redistricting purposes, incarcerated New Yorkers be counted at their last place of residence. But the League of Women Voters of New York and the Conservative Party argued the measure would have also reduced the power of minority parties in the redistricting process.

Another proposal would have eliminated a rule requiring voters to register at least 10 days before an election, while yet another would have removed a rule requiring voters to provide an excuse — such as that they are leaving town or incapacitated — when requesting an absentee ballot.

All three measures failed on Election Day, according to The Associated Press. …

But the defeat of the voting and redistricting proposals represented yet another blow for a Democratic Party reeling from electoral losses in New York and Virginia and an unexpectedly tight governor’s race in New Jersey.

Susan Lerner, the executive director of the civic watchdog group Common Cause New York and a proponent of all three initiatives, argued that the success of Republican and Conservative attacks highlighted the fragility of democracy itself.

“There was a strong anti-democratic push and the pro-democracy folks stayed home,” she said.  …

Finally, as written, the ballot questions, which required voters to flip their ballots over to weigh in, were hard to understand, according to Common Cause and like-minded groups.

The state attorney general’s office proposes the ballot’s wording, but the state Board of Elections has final say, said Douglas Kellner, the board’s co-chairman.

“The ballot language for 1, 3, and 4 was frankly impenetrable,” Ms. Lerner said of the three measures that went down to defeat.